the problem is that was the last deficit increase. the $1.2 trillion is sort of already in the bank. the credit agencies, by the way, assume we're going to make those cuts. so if you're suggesting that we do additional sequestration on the smaller part of the budget, the 38% we talked about, domestic discretionary, i suppose that's one way you could go. but, it ignores the fact that we've got this bigger part of the budget that's more politically sensitive, but has to be dealt with. the biggest part of the budget and the fastest growing part of the budget. it also, the $1.2 trillion is in the bank because of the discussions we had two years ago. >> you think the democrats would not see that as a credible threat? they would say go ahead, let the sequestration kick in? >> well, i think democrats and republicans alike would like to alter the way the sequestration works. but i hope that nobody's talking about not making good on our commitment to reach the $1.2 trillion. i'm certainly not. and those of us who are concerned on the across-th